Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36532862›Full record

ArticleSocial network analysis and mining2023

A reliable sentiment analysis for classification of tweets in social networks.

Masoud AminiMotlagh, HadiShahriar Shahhoseini, Nina Fatehi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Social network analysis and mining, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Masoud AminiMotlaghSchool of Electrical Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.
HadiShahriar ShahhoseiniSchool of Electrical Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.ORCID 0000-0002-6042-0993
Nina FatehiDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Wayne State University, Detroit, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In modern society, the use of social networks is more than ever and they have become the most popular medium for daily communications. Twitter is a social network where users are able to share their daily emotions and opinions with tweets. Sentiment analysis is a method to identify these emotions and determine whether a text is positive, negative, or neutral. In this article, we apply four widely used data mining classifiers, namely K-nearest neighbor, decision tree, support vector machine, and naive Bayes, to analyze the sentiment of the tweets. The analysis is performed on two datasets: first, a dataset with two classes (positive and negative) and then a three-class dataset (positive, negative and neutral). Furthermore, we utilize two ensemble methods to decrease variance and bias of the learning algorithms and subsequently increase the reliability. Also, we have divided the dataset into two parts: training set and testing set with different percentages of data to show the best train-test split ratio. Our results show that support vector machine demonstrates better outcomes compared to other algorithms, showing an improvement of 3.53% on dataset with two-class data and 7.41% on dataset with three-class data in accuracy rate compared to other algorithms. The experiments show that the accuracy of single classifiers slightly outperforms that of ensemble methods; however, they propose more reliable learning models. Results also demonstrate that using 50% of the dataset as training data has almost the same results as 70%, while using tenfold cross-validation can reach better results.

Indexed as

Data miningSentiment analysisSocial networks analysisText mining

Identifiers

PMID36532862
PMCPMC9742011

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.